I have been a scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, subsurface transport and environmental clean-up of heavy metals. I am a Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation and consult on strategic planning for the DOE, EPA/State environmental agencies, and industry including companies that own nuclear, hydro, wind farms, large solar arrays, coal and gas plants. I also consult for EPA/State environmental agencies and industry on clean-up of heavy metals from soil and water. For over 20 years I have been a member of Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund and many others, as well as professional societies including the America Nuclear Society, the American Chemical Society and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Fukushima -- Fear Is Still the Killer

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vows that nuclear plants passing new safety standards would be able to restart to ensure a stable energy supply.(Image credit: PATRICK LIN/AFP/Getty Images)

Sadness and Anger. That’s what came to mind on the two-year anniversary of the Fukushima disaster last week. But it was for two different reasons, for two different groups. I realize everyone who attended the anti-nuke rallies felt righteous and good about their anger at nuclear power and their sadness at the disaster (Bay Area IndyMedia).

But their anger is misplaced and their zealous cries against nuclear power eclipsed the real heartbreak – the tsunami itself and the mismanagement of the response.

I am in the other group. Those of us who are sad at the destruction wrought by the tsunami and angry at the horrible over-reaction to Fukushima that has hurt more people than the radiation ever will. The tsunami killed over 20,000 people and destroyed almost a million lives. The threat of radiation is a phantom that distracts the world and keeps the people of Japan terrorized with no foreseeable end.

Yet again, technical and scientific experts announced that the radiation effects from Fukushima will have little to no health impacts on the people of Japan, even on those most affected by the disaster at Daiichi.

Yet again, it was announced that the fear and continued misinformation about radiation is causing more harm than could possibly be caused by radiation.

Yet again, much of the public and most of the ideologues choose to ignore the experts and stoke the fear and suffering for whatever reasons they have, good or bad.

There is no question that an area around Fukushima is contaminated and needs to be cleaned-up before anyone can re-enter. But that area is confined to the >50 mSv/year zone (>6 microSv/hr). The rest of the area is safe enough to re-occupy and contains most of the population in the affected areas (Japan Ministry). The majority of the refugees could return safely to their homes and have a better life than where they are now.

The WHO released an interim evaluation in their ongoing assessment of Fukushima. For the general population in Fukushima prefecture, across Japan and beyond “the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated,” said WHO. Clear cases of health damage from radiation only occur following exposures of 1000 mSv – far more than the 10-50 mSv WHO said was received by the worst-hit people in Namie and Iitate.

The WHO also said the effects of the accident “are not expected to cause an increase in the incidence of miscarriages, stillbirths and other physical and mental conditions that can affect babies born after the accident.”

That the region was rapidly evacuated and everyone told not to eat anything from that area (for two months as I-131 decayed away), was all that was needed to reduce any threat of thyroid effects and all other cancers from most of the affected areas. Japan did this. The Soviets did not. That is why comparisons between Fukushima and Chernobyl fail. That plus Chernobyl released ten times as much radiation into the atmosphere.

However, after those two months, the situation in Japan needed to be re-evaluated and people allowed to return to most areas below reasonable radiation levels, levels in which many of us elsewhere in the world live.

But that did not happen. Instead, the Japanese people are being held in a horrible limbo, kept in fear by those who care more about closing nuke plants than in the lives of these refugees.

Ironically, the WHO report highlights the psychological effects of the disaster — fear, anxiety and depression to the point of psychosomatic illness, psychiatric disorders and suicide (Husband of Fukushima suicide victim demands justice). And, as only humans can do, people tend to stigmatize those hailing from affected areas, making relocation even more punishing.

Keeping in mind that background radiation is between 1 and 7 mSv/year in most areas of the world and that the WHO used the Linear No-Threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) incorrectly against the United Nations’ new recommendations (Radiation No Big Deal), the worst estimates of the effects from Fukushima include:

• most of Fukushima prefecture saw 3 to 5 mSv in the first year, much less than a routine CT-scan of the pelvis

• those living in the hardest-hit areas of Fukushima prefecture saw less than 25 mSv in the first year, equivalent to two CAT scans or to living in areas of southern Asia, and causing no significant increased risk of cancer

• the most affected exposed group were fetuses, whose risk of solid cancers increased from 29.0% to 30.2%, whose risk of Leukemia increased from 0.60% to 0.64%, and whose risk of thyroid cancers could increase from 0.75% to 1.27% by age 89 (the much-discussed thyroid abnormalities in Japanese children have always been endemic to Japan; almost half of the population suffers from these non-life-threatening abnormalities and no increase has been seen, or is likely to be seen, from Fukushima (Yuri Oiwa)

• for everyone already born, there will be no observable increase in cancers or deaths at all

These miniscule risks do not justify the continued harm and devastation perpetrated upon the Fukushima evacuees. Except for the small, highly contaminated areas adjacent to the reactors which should stay off-limits until remediated, the risk of cancer and death from the increased use of coal and gas since the disaster has provided much more risk to the population of the Japan region than any radiation effects from Fukushima (Killer Energy Sources).

Simply stopping smoking, which is rampant in Japan, would more than erase any risk from Fukushima, even for those who do not smoke (second hand-smoke effects, US EPA).

This is cold comfort to the families of the elderly who died unnecessarily from the forcible evacuation from hospitals and care homes during the accident, something recently admitted by the Japanese government (NYTimes Asia Pacific). Since all radiation effects decrease dramatically with age, these older people were in no health danger from the radiation at all and died pointlessly.

The health effects of increased fossil fuel use, the psychological effects of radiation fear and the tsunami itself are the real tragedies for the people of Japan. No energy source is perfect, but if the response to Fukushima were reasoned and commensurate with the risk, the Japanese people wouldn’t be suffering nearly as much.

Apparently the United Nation’s is understanding this, as evidenced by their recent changes to their response guidelines to incidents like Fukushima (Radiation No Big Deal). They understand that the historic execution of LNT as a global policy has caused more harm than good.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Sorry, you’re going to have to better than that. After reaching this line in your link:

“…nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen says…”,

any rational person with even a rudimentary knowledge of radiation protection would stop reading the rest of your link. Why would anyone want to listen to someone like Arnie Gundersen whose agenda is junk science?

The energy sector gave us the ability to sit in our homes at night with light, to have warm homes, and allowed us to use computers to communicate across the world. If you are so bothered about the costs, then do your bit to lessen it and stop using energy.